2) Unobservable assumptions. IE - the human eye is the result of many different mutations over the span of many many years.

These are the ones that require a "leap of faith", and I think its fair to say we're probably wrong here to some degree or another, or aren't accounting for something.

You keep saying this, but it doesn't mean it's true. We're not the only species on the planet, and phylogenetic analysis gives a wealth of information that eyes evolved independently-- we know where the major branch points were, what tissues the eye's cells were originally from, what primitive eyes were like, etc.

There's actually evidence against 'intelligent design' here-- you have a blind spot because your optic nerve pokes through the retina instead of just connecting the photoreceptors from behind, etc. (The mollusk eye evolved from skin cells, not brain cells, and doesn't have this problem.)

The fact that you're unaware of these observations doesn't mean the theory is flawed, or that it's correct to call them a "leap of faith" when there's considerable evidence backing the above.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com